Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade rates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trade rates[edit]

Delete. No encyclopedic information here. MrShamrock (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to discounts and allowances. Reasoning: This is a likely search term and so should not be deleted outright. However, an article on Trade Rates could only be (a) a dictionary definition or (b) a redundant repetition of information already in discounts and allowances.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep This may be very poorly written, but it is a very notable topic in economics. In fact, I am surprised there wasn't already an article on it.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to discounts and allowances per S Marshall. The type of "trade rates" that this article is talking about has absolutely nothing to do with economic measurements. The redirect can always be replaced by a new article on an economics subject at a later date if appropriate. Jll (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a "Trade rate" entry to the list in discounts and allowances, with a citation, since it wasn't listed there already. Jll (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per, S8333631. Ikip (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 19:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - with some cleanup and more references it could work as an article. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.